Back
B. R. GAVAI, K. V. VISWANATHAN
Naresh Potteries – Appellant
Versus
Aarti Industries – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the judgment and final order dated 12th April 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 29906 of 2022. The learned Single Judge allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Application filed by M/s Aarti Industries, Respondent No. 1 herein and quashed the summoning order dated 22nd November 2021 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khurja, Bulandshahar1[Hereinafter referred to as ‘trial court’.] in Complaint Case No. 701 of 2021, as well as the entire proceedings arising from the said complaint case filed by the present appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 18812[For short ‘NI Act’], pending before the trial court in C.N.R. No. UPBU160012972021.
3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:
3.1. M/s Naresh Properties through its Manager Neeraj Kumar, appellant herein, deals in the manufacture and sale of crockeries, insulators, polymer insulators and other such hardware fittings.
3.2. Between the period from 18th June 2021 to 2nd July 2021, M/s Aarti Industries represented by its sole pro
(1) Dishonour of cheque – In cases where payee/complainant is company, all that is necessary to be demonstrated before Magistrate is that complaint is filed in name of payee.(2) Dishonour of cheque ....
Power of attorney holders can file cheque dishonour complaints if they possess personal knowledge of the transaction; absence of such knowledge may invalidate the complaint.
(1) Dishonour of cheque – When, complainant/payee is a company, an authorized employee can represent company.(2) Dishonour of cheque – Dismissal of a complaint at threshold by Magistrate on question ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a complaint filed by a company under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must be in the name of the company and can be represented b....
Punishment under Section 138 of Act is not a means of seeking retribution but a means to ensure payment of money.
A power of attorney holder cannot file a complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act in his own name; he must act on behalf of the principal and possess knowledge of the transaction.
The court affirmed that a complaint under Section 138 requires valid authorization from a company’s board, and without it, the complaint is invalid regardless of other evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
